But the first term senator said he had not discussed joining the ticket with Romney, whose vice presidential search is already underway.

***

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney last night is igniting a fury of rage from his father’s hardcore fan base. In a sort of libertarian version of Bob Dylan going electric (ask your parents), the Kentucky senator’s enthusiastic endorsement of Romney has Ron Paul forums fuming with cries of “Judas” and “Benedict Arnold.”

“Rand is dead to me,” wrote, Ruffusthedog at the Daily Paul, a heavily-visited pro-Paul website. “He should have never done this.” “Rand Paul is a sell out,” user Alxnz exclaimed. “He just lost my vote in 2016.” “All he had to do was not open his mouth,” wrote user Conalmc. Others even took their anger out on Ron Paul himself. “What will it be Old Man Ron? Will you be forever remembered as the leader in the greatest liberty movement since 1776, or will you go down as Benedict Arnold incarnate,” threatened lionsuar7788. “We will never vote for Romney or your flimsy son.”…

On both forums, the tide of incredulous—and highly personal—comments continued ad nauseam. With Ron Paul’s diehard supporters being one of his most formidable assets, especially when it comes to winning straw polls or online money bomb fundraisers, you’ve got to wonder if Rand Paul risks jeopardizing the family brand.

***

[W]hile Paul is a helpful validator for Romney, endorsing Romney also gives Paul a level of mainstream credibility he lacked during his 2010 Senate campaign. It shows he’s willing to be a team player when it counts, and puts him on the safe side of any speculation over a third-party libertarian push.

And that could be crucially important or Paul if he decides to seek the White House himself in 2016 or beyond – as any number of operatives believe he hopes to do.

[N]o true libertarian, no true friend of liberty, and no true blue Tea Partier could possibly even consider, much less actually endorse or approve of, the Father of Obamacare, Big Government tax and spender, Republican Mitt Romney.

Especially the son of Ron Paul, who has no excuse.

Especially a medical doctor, who has even fewer excuses…

Vote Libertarian – the only political party that embraces the same core value as Dr. Ron Paul: Liberty!

***

Rand has never been the devout libertarian that his father is. He is certainly a libertarian-leaning Republican, and while he can often be a good ally to libertarians in the Senate, he is still first and foremost a Republican. And as a Senator he has much less latitude to diverge from the party line and needs other Senators to cooperate with him.

Because of this, the chances of him endorsing Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson were somewhere around one in one billion. While such an endorsement would make many libertarians happy, it would end his life as a Republican. It would mean that he would have no party support whatsoever come re-election time. It would alienate him from the party and mean he would get nothing accomplished in the Senate…

So while it may seem offensive that a liberty-minded person would endorse a candidate who supports such awful things as the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, it actually makes a lot of sense. I’d even go so far as to say it may be a price worth paying. If the endorsement solidifies Republican support and earns him points with the party establishment, it means he could have more freedom to chart his own course in the Senate.

***

As we have seen over the last few months, the Paul forces have the very real ability to not only disrupt the choosing of delegates to the Republican National Convention but also influence (and change) the leadership at various state parties around the country.

Does Rand Paul endorsing Romney mean that the Paul acolytes will immediately cease and desist in their efforts to have their views heard? No. But more so than most people who support a politician, the Paul folks listen to Ron/Rand and follow their wishes.

Rand’s endorsement then — when coupled with Ron’s email to supporters earlier this week urging politeness at the national convention — are a net win for Romney because they virtually ensure that there won’t be a genuine insurrection led by supporters of Paul at the convention. (Expect Romney to give Rand/Ron speaking slots at the convention too in hopes of throwing a sop to the Paul acolytes and push the theme of inclusion and big-tented-ness.)

***

At the Texas GOP Convention, Ron Paul addressed the issue that frustrates many people (including me) who like and respect him personally: the vocal, unbending supporters who were/are unwilling to accept any outcome other than Dr. Paul in the White House…

On the first day of the largest state convention in calendar year 2012, he told his supporters that upon arriving in Tampa for the Republican National Convention, they were to “be respectful.”…

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul and his son do not appear to be trying to blow up the Republican Party. They seem to realize that they have a better chance of advancing their goals in the long run by working within the system. For all the talk about being revolutionaries, Dr. Paul wants to see his movement become mainstream.

This has always been where Dr. Paul diverges from his most hard-core supporters. They often want an all-or-nothing approach, leaving them marginalized. Dr. Paul is willing to take what he can get now and come back for the rest later. This is not “selling out.” This is “pragmatism,” which does not have to be a dirty word.

***

I realize it’s frustrating to hear Sen. Rand Paul endorse someone besides his father — especially a corporatist empty suit who flirts with Keynesianism and who shepherded key aspects of Obamacare into existence as governor of Massachusetts. But before you pounce, renounce and otherwise burn all the bridges, consider that the revolution can be evolutionary…

If that involves making nice with Mitt Romney, so be it. Let’s not let our zeal blind us to the “adjacent possible.” In other words, don’t bulldoze the inroads you’ve made out of impatience or cynicism. You have moved the trenches forward. And having a strong liberty contingent close to any president means that president has a conscience speaking directly into his ear every single day…

There is a very strong argument to be made for letting the body politic bleed longer. That is, one could distance oneself from Romney, hoping he loses to the abysmal Obama in 2012. Then Rand Paul could run in 2016 with the support of both mainstream Republicans and Ron Paul revolutionaries. This is a fine idea except for the bleeding. That is: How much more can the Republic take of a Barack Obama administration? I know, I know. Obama and Romney are little different from your perspective. But consider that a Romney administration that includes Paul’s people — plus a well-composed Congress — could result in something really different from the rapid decline Obama is presiding over. Wishful thinking? No more so than counting on the stars aligning for a Rand Paul revolution four years from now.

***

If the movement is about Ron Paul, then it never had a future. It was born terminally defective. If it’s about ideas and ideals, it will never die. The only Party in which it has a chance to thrive, though, is the GOP, and the GOP must nurture at least some of Paul’s ideals if it is to have any useful existence of its own…

Whether or not Paul’s supporters can vote for Romney, they have to find a way to remain within the GOP even if Romney is the candidate. If they leave, they’ll find it hard to impossible to get back in, and if they don’t get back in, they’ll have to find a third-party home. That’s the path to complete irrelevance. They don’t have to like or vote for Romney, but they need to get more of their people in statehouses and Congress, and the easiest way to do that will be as Republicans.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Ya know, I’ve known about the Grateful Dead for the past 100 years, but that’s the first time I’ve ever heard them.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 3:41 AM

Give ‘em a whirl…Throw out all the garbage you know about deadheads and hippies. They were an amazing group of musicians that played a bunch of standard fare folk music, in addition to their own work. I love songs that tell stories. I think its why I like bluegrass and other oldetymie music. It is also why I like the Dead and….Phish :)

Night Cindy.

Oh, I found a song just for all the happy trolls we get here. It’s full of kind wishes.

Ya know, I’ve known about the Grateful Dead for the past 100 years, but that’s the first time I’ve ever heard them.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 3:41 AM

The Grateful Dead were the greatest rock n roll band to ever have walked the face of the Earth. Just had brunch with their bass player this morning. Helluva nice guy, and he makes a damn fine plate of ribs to boot.

Phil opened his new eatery/bar/club in San Rafael. He has brunch there every weekend, and they always have music. Sometimes Phil picks up his axe, and joins in. I was seated at the table next to his today, and he was right in front of me when he took the stage.

I missed the STL and Indy shows that tour, being broken down in Newark OH. Caught the final shows in Chicago though. And somewhere around 174 shows before that.

You should catch Furthur if you have the opportunity. Wicked good. Of course, I am finding it more and more difficult to justify going out on the road to see Phil now, as my access to seeing him play at Terrapin Crossroads is incredibly high.

Seriously… it’s like walking into your local fine dining establishment, and playing in the bar is Phil Lesh.

I can only explain how I think and will vote as a Ron Paul supporter. I’m really angered by the campaign’s decision to even run within the GOP and feel that now we’re seeing the results of that disastrous decision. The GOP hates us, and we hate them now. What a great effin strategy! Ron Paul should have run as an independent the moment he decided not to seek re-election. This would have avoided this fractured situation we’re in now. Rush Limbaugh thought Ron Paul would destroy the GOP, but I Fear the opposite is happening. Rand Paul is destroying the Ron Paul movement as it currently is within the GOP. It’s going to go third party but it will probably be fractured as a result. It’s kind of complicated but again, all I can do is say what I will and will not do;

- I will never vote for Obama.
- I will never vote for Romney, even if Paul is vice.
- Neither will reduce spending drastically.
- Neither will stop policing the world.
- Neither will stop bailing out businesses.
- Neither will stop covert warfare.
- Neither will defend liberty.

And neither will have my vote.

This should be an obvious choice for all true liberty-lovers. And when I say liberty lovers, I of course do not mean Rand Paul. He’s not and has never been a consistent defender of liberty. He’s a political whore, just like every other politician before him and nothing more. If Mitt Romney had moved right on some issues in order to garner Rand’s vote, that would be understandable but to just bend over and give your blind and impotent support to someone who seems to stand against everything you profess to believe in – then you’re useless to me as a defender of the Constitution.

I’m so sick of these political whores and just when you think you’ve found a good Senator he goes and does this. Yeah his votes might be good now but wait in a few years. He’ll bend and bend until he’s McCain Beta. I posted over on the DailyPaul that Ron Paul must go third party in order to destroy the third party paradigm and give us someone to vote for, or a “home”. As of right now I feel like I’m about to watch McCain/Obama all over again and yet again I’ll have NOBODY TO VOTE FOR.

I can only explain how I think and will vote as a Ron Paul supporter.
fatlibertarianinokc on June 10, 2012 at 5:23 AM

A lot of people idolize Ron Paul and moan that he is the only politician that would cut spending. But would he? Despite his anti-spending position, he consistently adds billions of dollars worth of pork to appropriations bills, which he knows will pass without his vote and then votes against them, acting holier than thou.

That spending is solely the work of Ron Paul. If he didn’t put it in, it wouldn’t happen. The act of voting against it doesn’t negate his adding the spending in the first place.

Paul has good ideas, but even if elected, he wouldn’t be the panacea his supporters imagine.

Does the President set the budget? No. The House does and despite decades in the house, Paul has been completely ineffectual at cutting spending, and in reality he has increased it.

Really, he’s just another politician. The link only cites the last 2 years worth of earmarks, but when you figure in the duration of his career, it’s a lot of money, and IMO actions speak louder than words. He puts that spending in. He is responsible for it. He knows it will pass. Adding the spending and voting against it is rank hypocrisy.

I’m so sick of these political whores and just when you think you’ve found a good Senator he goes and does this. Yeah his votes might be good now but wait in a few years. He’ll bend and bend until he’s McCain Beta. I posted over on the DailyPaul that Ron Paul must go third party in order to destroy the third party paradigm and give us someone to vote for, or a “home”. As of right now I feel like I’m about to watch McCain/Obama all over again and yet again I’ll have NOBODY TO VOTE FOR.

Ugh, Gary Johnson? Sigh.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 10, 2012 at 5:23 AM

How is someone not some sort of political whore, too, if he joins a Party and afterwards only supports that Party’s candidates when he feels like it? It’s impossible to win with people like you.

Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson) not only isn’t God, he (they) is not a god, and his non-GOP-affiliated supporters aren’t very smart when it comes to understanding the obligations RP has as a member of the GOP…

even with obama, alot of conservatives are not going to get up off the couch to vote for mitt. its a fact.

renalin on June 10, 2012 at 7:21 AM

What did my post have to do with Mitt?

I was being critical of people who are upset with Rand Paul over his endorsement, and who promote Ron as some sort god when it comes to purity, when by their own petty, ludicrous standards he cannot be one.

All I did was remain present and responding to the utterly bizarre and eventually quite insane, crass remarks aimed my way by equally disturbed individuals.

And what was that all about anyway? I objected to the “poof” atop Palin’s head (which I note is now gone with more careful grooming). That seems to have set off some sort of meltdown by some here that continued on with a few suggesting I’d committed a hideous crime (which they actually spelled out here in their comments).

All I did was stay present and confront the insanity. I had no point and thus no rant other than to remain consistently swatting away certain flies.

Also, among the various nasties aimed irrationally at me was some sort of hatefulness because I wasn’t going off negatively on Mitt Romney. I’ve maintained support for each leading GOP candidate all throughout the process of working toward our nominee and I’m today quite pleased with how Romney’s managing his campaign and looking forward to voting for him this November.

I’m not nor never have been anything resembling any Liberal, nor Libertarian, and that includes having never supported Ron Paul as a possible GOP nominee (nor did I support Johnson, nor do I read Alex Jones, nor all the rest that seems to be shared characteristic by most the Paulians).

So there’s no basis for anyone to be harassing me under inaccurate assumption that I’m some sort of “liberal (and/or) troll”. I am likely far more conservative in my views, politically and personally, than many who continue to comment here and who were among the most obnoxious engaged in crud-speech attempting to malign me during that experience.

I lasted them out, which I rarely do or care to do, here or anywhere else, as to some comment-battle. But in that case, the assumptions aimed at me were so entirely nuts — crazed, irrational, ugly, foaming at the keyboard — that the situation required confronting those responsible. Thus, having available time at that episode, I decided to remain active on that thread as long as the insane comments about me continued.

Like I wrote before, the crazy people responsible for that (and I saved screen caps of the whole mess) were pawned and they’re still steemed that their ugliness was caught on disk.

Thanks for my first smile of the day. It’s difficult not to become so passionate that we actually allow politics to usurp our identity. It becomes a badge of honor to say, “I’d rather break than bend,” but that’s not reality, is it?

Don’t mean to creep anyone out but I think Rand is kinda cute. He has a little of his father’s nutty twinkle.

And, on this bright sunny day, there’s some lovely bagels, cream cheese and bright red strawberries over by the coffee. Help yourselves.

ROTFLMAO… That was a rant for the ages. I’ve chatted with her a few times since then and she has managed to be calm and rational, but lord oh lord that was something else.

SWalker on June 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I was ALSO “calm and rational” in that episode. I simply remained present throughout the irrational tirade that continued by some here about me. Obviously, those maligning me in that episode were not either rational nor calm and I doubt they anticipated anyone confronting their b.s. as I did — because they obviously displayed inability to contend with their own fringes and with a situation when someone refused to submit to their hysteria.

Having looked over the DVDs I have on which I saved the screen captures of the entire series of comments, there’s little to no doubt that those involved in that had totally lost control of their reason. Some of the accusations against me were criminal and remain so and I don’t excuse it.

No, I have nor have ever had any “hate” for Palin. That you’d even say what you just wrote reveals your own paranoia and lack of balance and it’s a shame those of you who harbor irrational assumptions like that lack the ability to view yourselves reasonably, both the good AND the irrational bad.

Remarking about Palin’s hairdo at that time and that her voice was shrill is hardly an act of “Palin hate.” Obviously, Palin’s done some appearance modification recently and better modulated her broadcast voice a bit so my criticisms about those two aspects of her were hardly inconsequential.

You win nothing in media if you make a bad impression for clearly modifiable — and thus avoidable — appearances.

And, I think Allahpundit has written well about and astutely described the situation as to the — for lack of a better phrase for it — Libertarian Fringe problem that associates with certain Libertarian/Libertarian-associated political players, and that includes the websites they maintain and congregate on to trash others.

This business is well ended.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.

Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: (Lourdes, you were) mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.

That was Lourdes? I haven’t seen much of her but I wouldn’t have thunk it.
Most threads don’t last 17 hours anyway.

22044 on June 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

It was Lourdes and it was 17 hours. That is what people said anyway.

SparkPlug on June 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I’m curious … what was it about? I’m sure it was long before I discovered this site.

PatriotGal2257 on June 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Most threads don’t last 17 hours anyway.

22044 on June 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Man, that one sure did. So did the AnninCA F-bomb thread. IIRC, Ed had to shut ‘em both down…

OmahaConservative on June 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

(1.) I’m not ON any “meds” that I should or could go “off” of, despite the obscene accusations of such on that offensive series of remarks on that “epic comments thread” you’re referring to;

(2.) Anyone interested should read my comments here, just above, for the non-gossipy, non trollage snarks about others made by OmahaConservative, who seems to be trying awfully hard to make foam out of calm water;

and,

(3.) AP closed that thread down after I applied the ugliest of irrational accusational tactics aimed at me for many hours earlier to one of the users who was responsible for the ugliest of accusations made about me.

Like I wrote earlier here, I saved the whole series of comments to disk as screen captures, so there’s little room to argue an new history to what’s already been recorded history. I remained present in commenting on that thread at that time because a few here had taken (and seem to continue to try) to writing any hideous allegation about others — in that case, me — that they felt they could get away with.

libertarian fringe problem? That sounds like something I’d object to but there’s no way I’m reading back through the thread to see what you’re talking about.

Slade73 on June 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Well, some here use the term, “Paulbots” or “Paulians” or thereabouts.

Allapundit posted an excellent description of the issue so, perhaps, you should just read or reread that. I surmised it as the “Libertarian Fringe” problem simply because there are a “fringe” of people who seem to identify as Libertarians who can be routinely found sharing the same zealotry for a Personality Politician or one or a few and Paul, Johnson and Palin are among those as are from the Leftwing Fringe side, also includes Obama.

They generate a lot of anger, hostility, make many and many loud demands on others and disrupt conventions and speakers otherwise but they make more noise than they offer votes and voter support. Thus, “Fringe” of one flavor or another

That isn’t to suggest that “all” of one or the other are “all that” — but that the fringe element is the issue.

As I’ve said already, Allapundit wrote a very good description of the issue in his post here, of what I’d summarize as being “the Fringe Libertarian” element. He didn’t — and I’m not suggesting it — write that about the Libertarians in general.

And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: (Lourdes, you were) mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.

Fallon on June 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Again, you’re making — continuing to make — irrational assumptions if not trying vainly to rewrite history.

I’m not fond of — and I don’t try to be coy about not finding the disusting acceptable — false allegations made about others and revised renditions about issues and happenings to try and save face by those responsible for bad deeds.

It was not I who wrote to others here in public commenting that you or anyone else was using (name a street narcotic here or a few of them) and similar deeds including slurring me by writing I’d taken someone else’s life.

All of that was why I saved screen captures of the comments: because I knew those who could and did make such hideous, horrible, monstrous remarks about me would, indeed, later try to claim they were victimized or that I was somehow “ranting” when I objected to their awful remarks. And right on cue…

You have moments of clarity but when it comes to Palin, your lengthy manic rants have no end. Something in you will not allow others to have the final word.

And, on that, I’m out. Get in your final rants and declare victory. It’s a beautiful day and the dogs need walking before it gets too hot.

Fallon on June 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

The nice thing about dogs is that they don’t ‘infringe on your time and patience’ with “manic rants”, eh? It’s tough having to actually READ responses and counter-arguments when you’ve been offfensive and flippant regards the worth of someone else.

About Palin, you who have some sort of love affair with a public figure that is her are disturbed about her. Others see it so easily, you, not at all. Thus, ANYthing that ANYone writes that doesn’t reflect abject indulgence about her and about yourselves sends you off into various emotional escapades that are destructive.

Anything and everything I’ve ever written about her that was complimentary has long since been erased by this critical phenomenon that associates with her. I use the mute button on the set, I use the scroll function on the computer and I use the ban feature on twitter for the entire “movement” associated.

Many of us remember the extensive “Romney hate” that originated with the Palin People last election and it carried forth this election cycle. I tried and continue to try to stay out of it; good luck to her, and to you.

Curiously, what commenting that appears recorded on extensive screen captures proves you wrong, as also proves “Fallon” as wrong and deceitful: the dog ate the history. But yet the actual history is recorded on DVD that proves the dog wasn’t there and history isn’t what you nor he/she is trying today to recreate it as.

I volunteered on Rand’s campaign and i generally agree with his father. I think his foreign policy views are unrealistic in the age of nuclear Iran and others. However, I have not figured out why Ron’s campaign seems to attract the nuts. Ideology is fine, but in the end you accomplish nothing if you cannot get elected.

I volunteered on Rand’s campaign and i generally agree with his father. I think his foreign policy views are unrealistic in the age of nuclear Iran and others. However, I have not figured out why Ron’s campaign seems to attract the nuts. Ideology is fine, but in the end you accomplish nothing if you cannot get elected.

pgrossjr on June 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The answer to why he attracts the nuts is in your post, in, in 2 spots…

Along with explaining the numbers and spelling out their long-term impact, Rep. Kasich would spice his talk with references to his passion for the music of the Grateful Dead and his love of basketball and tennis.

Along with explaining the numbers and spelling out their long-term impact, Rep. Kasich would spice his talk with references to his passion for the music of the Grateful Dead and his love of basketball and tennis.

You were saying?

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

lol

1) you had no link/reference in the post I responded to, so ‘you weren’t paying close attention’ does not compute here

2) the GD are to rock ‘n’ roll as The Beatles are to The Rolling Stones when it comes to rock ‘n’ roll

volunteered on Rand’s campaign and i generally agree with his father. I think his foreign policy views are unrealistic in the age of nuclear Iran and others. However, I have not figured out why Ron’s campaign seems to attract the nuts. Ideology is fine, but in the end you accomplish nothing if you cannot get elected.

pgrossjr on June 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

His foreign policy views wrt Iran are very realistic. On some level, that is why they scare the Right so much. Realism recognizes the primacy of nation-states, and the necessity of recognizing constraints on resources when considering how to deal with foreign policy issues. RP has said that it’s natural for Iran to seek a weapon. Well, as sovereign state surrounded by questionable characters like Russia, Iraq and the Af-Pak theater, of course they want a bomb. Even if the Islamists weren’t in charge, Iran would still seek the bomb. And RP claims we’ve blown our credibility with other nations over Iraq, and we cannot afford to handle an invasion of Iran by ourselves. What part of that do you disagree with?

First of all, we have a new candidate for most scrambled analogy in the universe.

Second, it’s still pretty early Sunday morning here, and I have yet to graze.

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It was scrambled only if you weren’t able follow w/o help.

I knew what I meant, said it in a sensible way, and the point I made still stands: The GD is a great rock ‘n’ roll band the same way that The Beatles are one when compared to The RS i.e. the Beatles are more of a pop band than they are a great rock ‘n’ roll band like The RS (listen to their differing versions of “I Wanna Be Your Man” for a taste of what I mean), and the GD, who do notever rock w/a good groove, really don’t know much about what great rock ‘n’ roll music is! :)

I don’t usually post on “dead” threads, and you might not see this, but your comment is as juicy as OmahaConservative’s pus-filled toe.

How anyone can say that Ron Paul’s policy views toward Iran are realistic is beyond my comprehension. At worst, a nuclear Iran uses the weapon to annihilate Israel, which they’ve threatened to do. (This is completely different from our experience with the USSR, who were not religious fanatics.) At best, Iran uses their nuclear capability to bully the entire region, forever occluding any chance at stability in the ME.

“Questionable characters like Russia, Iraq, and the Af-Pak theater”?!? I don’t know if you made a mistake in phrasing, but to mention “questionable characters” that Iran has to deal with is patently absurd.

“Even if the Islamists weren’t in charge”?? Who else is going to be in charge of Iran? The 4-H club?

The only thing Ron Paul says on foreign policy that makes any sense whatsoever is that we should stop being the world’s policeman. (Still, someone has to keep the world a relatively safe place, and as you may have noticed Europe is out.)

Having said all of that, I appreciate a RP supporter that isn’t a fanatical idealogue.